Plaintiffs May Proceed On Some Claims Charging Anti-Hasidic Motivation In Obstructing Construction

In Bloomingburg Jewish Educational Center v. Village of Bloomingburg, New York, (SD NY, June 9, 2015), a New York federal district court allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with some of their claims that local governments and public officials of the Village of Bloomingburg and the Town of Mamakating took various actions to prevent Hasidic Jews from moving into the area.  The court held that two of the plaintiffs

have stated plausible claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985 against [various] defendants ... based on these defendants’ alleged roles in stymying the conversion of a property in Bloomingburg into a mikvah, a bath used by Hasidic Jews for ritual immersion and purification.  Plaintiff Sullivan Farms II, Inc. has stated plausible claims for relief under § 1983, § 1985, and the FHA ...  against [certain] defendants based on these defendants’ alleged roles in obstructing the completion of a housing development project known as Chestnut Ridge.

A number of other of plaintiffs' claims were dismissed.  AP reports on the decision.

Madison, Wisconsin Bars Discrimination Against Atheists, Agnostics, and Nonbelievers

As reported recently by AP, last month the city of Madison, Wisconsin enacted amendments (full text) to its Equal Opportunities Ordinance adding "nonreligion"  to the protected classes covered by its employment, housing and public accommodation anti-discrimination law (final action 3/31, enactment date 4/9). The ordinance defines "nonreligion" as "atheism, agnosticism, or other disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."  Under the ordinance, non-profit religious organizations can still give preference to members of their own, or similar, denominations in hiring for instructional or policy-making positions, including hiring chaplains or counselors. According to a Freedom From Religion Foundation attorney, one of the reasons for enactment of the amendments is the recent increase in Madison of religiously-owned housing.

Ramapo Villages Officials Cleared of Discrimination Claims Growing Out of Zoning Fight

In Bernstein v. Village of Wesley Hills, (SD NY, March 27, 2015), a New York federal district court rejected religious discrimination claims growing out of a chapter in the long battle between Hasidic residents and others in parts of Rockland County, New York. As recounted by the court:

Plaintiffs are religious corporations and individuals affiliated with the Chofetz Chaim sect of Orthodox Judaism, and they allege an interest in the operation of Kiryas Radin, a religious educational institution and center for religious activity and prayer, located on 4.7 acres of unincorporated land in the Town of Ramapo....

The heart of Plaintiffs’ case is their allegation that Defendants [village officials] colluded to file the Chestnut Ridge Action—which claimed, in relevant part, that Ramapo’s environmental review of Kiryas Radin prior to its approval was insufficient under state law—for discriminatory reasons. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, “[h]iding behind a false façade as protectors of the environment . . . utilized municipal government authority to advance their campaign against the spread of Orthodox Jewery in the Town of Ramapo.” ...

By Plaintiffs’ own admission, their claims at this stage of the litigation are dependent on their allegation that Defendants did not bring legal challenges against development projects that were, other than not being run by members of the Hasidic community, similar to Kiryas Radin in all material respects.

The court however concluded that the non-Hasidic development projects which were not challenged were not similar to Kiryas Radin. It also concluded that plaintiffs had not shown discriminatory intent on the part of the defendants:

Having lived and worked with residents and officials from the Villages during these many years, Plaintiffs firmly believe that they have been targeted because of their religious beliefs, even if they cannot point to discriminatory statements by Defendants. The Court is sympathetic: who would know better than the Parties in this case whether the current dispute is a product of the decades-long tension between the Hasidic community and the Villages of Ramapo? However ... [b]ecause Plaintiffs have offered almost no evidence in support of their claims, and certainly not enough to raise a contested issue of material fact, the Court must grant summary judgment in favor of Defendants.

Houston Passes Controversial Equal Rights Ordinance

As reported by CultureMap Houston, on Wednesday the Houston, Texas City Council by a vote of 11-6 passed the controversial Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (full text). The new law protects against discrimination in public accommodations, employment and housing on the basis of sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity or pregnancy. A provision that would have protected transgender persons in bathroom choice was removed after particularly strong objections from conservative and religious leaders.  Religious organizations are exempted from various provisions of the Ordinance. According to MSNBC, before passage of this ordinance, Houston was the largest U.S. city without local anti-discrimination laws.  Opponents of the measure are attempting to collect the needed 17,000 signatures to put repeal of the Ordinance on the ballot in November's election.